The great Strava moving time Con

[tallliman]

Is that pace reading 3mins/km?

 

[S-Express]

OP has gone strangely quiet..

 

[Aravis]

On a 10 hour ride I find that RwGPS gives me under 10 minutes extra stopped time compared with Strava, nothing to get worked up about. Whereas distance and elapsed time are pretty much absolutes, moving time and elevation involve quite a bit of subjectivity.

I can see that Strava wouldn't want to highlight two separate average speed figures. A useful stat it could add would be "percentage stopped time", which would neatly put the moving average speed into perspective. Rider 1 does 16mph (25%); rider 2 does 13mph (4%) - you have a more complete picture of what they've both done.

Rider 2 is me, btw.

 

[Aravis]

...an interesting Audax conundrum. At the controls you need to buy something to get a receipt. This is normally food, so you then have to eat it. At the last control, I bought a Magnum lolly. Which I then had to wolf down as quick as possible, which meant I had to set off with one of those "eating ice cream too fast" headaches.

When you can get three Double Raspberry Magnums for £2 at Tesco to eat at leisure post-ride, that would be enough to persuade me to buy something transportable at a control.

I empathise to an extent with the OP. Some of the stuff Strava spits out, such as the Yearly Century Challenge weekly leaderboard, includes stats like average (moving) speed and total climbing, but doesn't say anything about time spent hanging around in bars. My inactive time is almost invariably very low, so one of the measures where I'd normally score well is absent. Added to that, last year when I was using an Edge 200, I was getting much lower climbing numbers than most of the others on the same terrain. But of course, I shouldn't be trying to compare myself with anyone else...

 

[KneesUp]

So are we concluding that Strava and similar tools are just another source of stress in life, and as such have no place in a leisure activity?

 

[Crackle]

I use both times according to what I'm planning. If I'm just out for a ride then I'm interested in moving time because if I'm stopped it's lights or traffic. if I'm out all day or touring, then I'm interested in total time.

I have my Sportstracks programme set to smooth out anything below 2mph! Even Strava isn't that optimistic.

 

[Apollonius]

Why all this hate for Strava? It is a free service that records your cycling for you, allows you to see how long your tyres and chains and stuff have lasted and gives you some idea of your fitness. I really enjoy seeing how I have done against my previous rides if I have been pushing myself. I do not compare myself with anyone else. Why all this shooting of the messenger? It is a free tool. Up to you how you use/abuse it.

 

[Aravis]

I hate to say this, but comparing with oneself can be stressful as well. In the last couple of months I've been struggling, and failing, to match what I was doing in March, April, and May. We're not talking anything remarkable here, I hasten to add.

I'm sure it's the new tyres I've been using. Trouble is, if I go back to the old ones, and find that it isn't, that will just make it worse.

 

[pjd57]

Strava is good , as long as you don't take it too seriously.

For someone like me who plods along its a useful tool for knowing how long it takes me to get to various places .
Just check how long the last trip or a similar one took , and I don't end up being too early. ( I'm never late )

The segments and PB stuff are just a bit of fun , not something you should rely on.

It's been good this week seeing the difference in times with my new bike v the old one.

C.cross v hybrid

 

[fossyant]

It's also good for helping track your own fitness. Other than that, don't take it seriously.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Went out on a charity ride today, horrible in the rain, many people had punctures. I was lucky and when I got home found out my official time, and posted it on line for other cycle friends to see. A group of other cyclists were 30 minutes behind me because they kept stopping for rests and one puncture. They then all posted their times via strava, showing that they got home at least 20 minutes before me.
What a con and very misleading Strava is. You could stop many times, have food and rest, in reality take a very long time but using Strava claim you took no time at all. Its your total time that counts, stops and all, specially on organised, chipped tides.

Who, er, cares?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

@Rupie

It was a charidee ride. Did the fundraising depend on the speed of completion?

 

[Alan O]

I hate to say this, but comparing with oneself can be stressful as well.

Indeed it can - many's the time I've finished a ride, looked at the stats, and thought "I can't even beat that fat b*****d!"

Seriously, all I really use Strava for is to keep a record of my approximate total mileage - and it's a lot more accurate at that the old mechanical doo-dahs I used to have on my front wheel when I was younger.

It's also nice to see if my moving average speed increases as I ride more over the same routes, but just as a rough guide to how my fitness is going.

 

[si_c]

I use it to track my mileage on my bikes, and to keep track of my general fitness. I also like seeing improvements in speed and endurance over time, which I wouldn't be able to do easily without it. I'm never going to be competitive with the younger, thinner people who also use strava, so there is little competitiveness in it for me.

I think part of the beauty of the tool is that it gives those who use it what they need, whether they want to see themselves at the top of leaderboards or are just interested in tracking their own progress.

 

[Racing roadkill]

Strava is THE LAW. If it isn't on Strava, it DIDN'T FLIPPING WELL HAPPEN. That's how it is, live with it.